Category Archives: Religion

Tip-toeing Tutors

Posted on by

A research paper shows how English secondary school teachers handle the question of how to bridge the gap between religion and science. The researchers found out that science and religious education teachers tackle this problem differently:

Both RE and science teachers were aware that a “science vs religion” viewpoint turned some students off their subjects. Science teachers responded by emphasising “respect” for religion but avoiding controversial discussion, whereas RE teachers tackled the tension. While there is some curriculum guidance about science for RE teachers, science teachers have little guidance or help on how to address science and religion, and so are negotiating their own way through this difficult territory.

This is an artificial problem, and the tack that the science teachers take is dangerously wrong. Religions, like all ideologies should never be respected, and are fair game for discussion. It may, however, be a good idea to pay your respect to the people who hold these ideologies. But only to a certain point: people who, for example, believe the white race to be superior deserve no respect at all. Neither as a person nor their ideology.

This should be a non-issue. Science teachers could easily point this out to their students and shut down any possible discussions: while different people may hold different religious beliefs, science applies to all. There is no such thing as ‘Hindu Physics’ or ‘Christian Physics’. There is just Physics. If you need a religious qualifier, it’s not science.

Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. The real problem is mentioned only in an aside:

They [the teachers] knew the discussions were controversial, and worried about parent complaints.

Right. It’s not the students. Their parents are the real problem. Not to mention parents who send their kids to faith schools.

Good luck trying to resolve that when your approach to solving this is to tip-toe around the problem. Nothing was ever solved that way.

With apologies to Pink Floyd, the teachers must draw a line in the sand:

“Parents, leave these kids alone!”

The Vatican Deathwish

Posted on by

The Catholic Church just had a Synod. Reading the Vatican report on LGBT is a bit like watching an old, dim-witted dog perform a new trick: it’s somewhat unexpected, a bit exciting, yet tragically pathetic.

So the Roman Catholic church finally found out that

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community

Bravo. Of course they have a lot to offer. Especially to a rapidly shrinking community. So the Church finds it in them to allow gays and lesbians a minor seat at the table. Some observers are ecstatic. They are obviously easily impressed or must have expected so little that actually mentioning homosexuality already sent them to the fainting couch. All we know is that the church now wants to officially be able to also milk LGBT people.

Still, they managed to fumble even that:

The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman.

Why? Reasons! Well, and probably Levicitus 20, which is so overruled by Jesus – as Christians not in the Vatican never tire to point out. So, dear queers, you may come to our table, and give us your gifts. And we’ll give you absolutely nothing in return except a few condescending, empty words.

Less surprising, the Catholic Church wouldn’t be the self-righteous moralizing organization they are if they didn’t manage to shoot themselves in a foot that wasn’t even there: contraception is still out. This is the third millennium, people, and you guys still trot out that chestnut? They can’t – in their wildest dreams – imagine that a doctrine that backwards would attract young people, can they? Soon that Church will consist solely of old people, misogynists and bigoted homophobes. Way to go!

Some people call the Vatican paper ‘revolutionary’. I call it a death wish.

Religion of Restraint

Posted on by

Islamists have shown great restraint a few months ago. After a pamphlet insulting the Prophet was found in one of the 80’000 books housed in a Library, Muslims merely torched the building and, for good measure, shot just one the library workers. Don’t worry, the worker survived, even though he totally deserved death for working in such a morally decadent place.

A death toll of zero after such a egregious, brutal and unprovoked assault on Islam is practically unheard of.

This shows that cooler heads in muslim communities are starting to prevail. We now can hope that within the next few years, women can openly ask for education without being shot at all (the Malala case already proves that in modern muslim countries, women can ask for education without being killed; they are merely shot in the face).

So the religion of peace is now changing into the religion of peace with less killing!

So, good news all around.

Well, except for the few thousand books.

Mother lode mining

Posted on by

Sam Harris, while on Bill Maher’s Real Time with actor Ben Affleck as another panelist, said:

We have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam is the Mother lode of bad ideas

Affleck, for reasons unknown, seemed intent on outing Harris, whom he had never met before, as a religious bigot. Had Ben not been so focused on finding flaws in what Harris said, and had Harris – who was visibly surprised by Affleck’s hostility – slightly amended his statement, the whole discussion could have taken a turn for the better.

Had Sam said ‘Islam, like Christianity, is a Mother lode of bad ideas’, even Ben would have seen Harris’ intent. Since Sam didn’t, Ben deemed the statement to be a one-sided attack on Islam.

Now, the occasional good point aside, all religions are Mother lodes of bad ideas. Their claims of absolute truth and inerrancy make them intrinsically poisonous to the mind. As I wrote, the debate could have turned there and then: Pointing out that Christianity and Islam have the same amount of bad ideas (actually, Levicitus, Numeri and Deuteronomy alone are as bad as anything the Quran can offer) could have led to the discovery of the fact that even though Christians posses their own Mother lode of Really Bad Ideas, today fewer Christians act on them than their Muslim counterparts (which, I think, was Harris’ point all along).

Sam Harris wrote

After the show, Kristof, Affleck, Maher, and I continued our discussion. At one point, Kristof reiterated the claim that Maher and I had failed to acknowledge the existence of all the good Muslims who condemn ISIS, citing the popular hashtag #NotInOurName.

In response, I said: “Yes, I agree that all condemnation of ISIS is good. But what do you think would happen if we had burned a copy of the Koran on tonight’s show? There would be riots in scores of countries. Embassies would fall. In response to our mistreating a book, millions of Muslims would take to the streets, and we would spend the rest of our lives fending off credible threats of murder. But when ISIS crucifies people, buries children alive, and rapes and tortures women by the thousands—all in the name of Islam—the response is a few small demonstrations in Europe and a hashtag.”

That is the difference between Islam and Christianity, and we should be able to say this openly. Ben’s ambivalence on this comes close to the racism of low expectations. Christianity has had more time (and they literally took their bloody time) to moderate their doctrine of hate, homophobia and misogyny to today’s (still unacceptably high) levels. A majority of Muslims today believe that death is the appropriate punishment for apostasy as earnestly as Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross. Neither see anything wrong with their belief.

From an ethical standpoint, neither ideology is defensible; cutting Islam some slack because it has to ‘catch up’ is not an option – that would be the ‘low expectation’ trap. All religions must be measured by today’s standards. Yet that is not even the real issue here.

The real problem is that the world has progressed technologically too far to let Muslims have their own Crusade or Inquisition. Muslims around the world must ‘do the time warp’ into ethical present or risk that their faith becomes the cause for the greatest catastrophe in human history. IS(IS), Boko Haram, al-Shabbab and Taliban may well be mere precursors of what is come if they don’t.

God hates you

Posted on by

Atheists often hear the ridiculous assertion that they hate gods.

But let’s be honest – even if we did, it wouldn’t affect anyone else. If a god can’t take the fact that a mortal hates them – well… On the other hand, there are ample reason to hate gods if they existed.

If you look at the Aceh province of Indonesia, for example, you’ll see a God-given system in effect. And it positively hates humans, women in particular. If you drink alcohol, kiss while not married, skip friday prayer, or – god forbid, literally – engage in anything homosexual, you will receive barbaric, horrendous corporal punishment. There is nothing benevolent about this system; it is pure, unadulterated hatred of anything that those in power deem ‘un-islamic’. And of course it also applies to non-muslims.

If you look at Aceh’s sharia laws, and believe that they are inspired by a God, the conclusion is obvious: God hates humans. Anything that could be fun, happy, or joyful is an affront to that god: music, cinema, driving a motor cycle, or openly showing affection. That god expects everyone to be miserable – and thank him for it. Hating such an unpleasant, blood-thirsty, petty and spiteful God would be a virtue.

Thank God – you’re out!

Posted on by

The gesture is the epitome of sanctimonious self-aggrandizing: thanking god when you score in a game or win in a competition. Believing that god not only favors you over the other team, but also alters reality to help you win is borderline megalomaniac, and a crass contradiction to the idea that your god is just.

A few days ago, referees penalized Kansas City Chief’s Husain Abdullah who, after a successful touch-down, had nothing better to do than to kneel, and thank his god – probably for using his celestial powers to smite New England, the opposing team.

Since it’s not a US custom to penalize open displays of stupidity – even in egregious instances as this – I think that the referees over-reacted. Is thanking god for winning stupid? Yes. Is it in-your-face arrogant? Definitely. Is is unsportsmanlike? You bet.

But it’s also very American. Just watch the Academy Awards.

Neal Larson: Moran

Posted on by

Neal Larson is angry at ‘militant atheists’. Why? It’s not entirely clear, but after carefully reading his ‘Militant Atheism Rears its Ugly Head‘, I conclude it’s because these terrible, ungodly people dare to speak up for themselves.

Since we should never assume malice where simple incompetence suffices, let’s be kind and assume that Neal really lost his marbles writing this.

First, he flat out states that he

would refuse to vote for a proud and vocal atheist for high office, regardless of any offsetting credentials.

But he would vote for proud and vocal theists who flaunt their faith – who make a show of going to church, and make it a point to use phrases like under god during allegiance, …so help me god for their oath, or finish their speeches with God bless America. Because double standards are a sign of healthy morals, right? I guess his regardless of any offsetting credentials is the cherry on top to underscore his open-mindedness.

He then unintentionally proves that he doesn’t know the difference between private and official roles, claiming that a school official who leads everyone into prayer over the intercom is merely someone who privately affirms their faith. A little later he bemoans the fact that many Americans are falling prey to political hyper-correctness, who then outlaw phrases like ‘bless you’. Doing that would indeed be silly – but it is in no way something that Atheists would demand. It’s what religious people do because they erroneously believe that saying ‘bless you’ would offend Atheists. It doesn’t. And here’s a hint: we don’t mind people saying ‘merry Christmas’ either. We know how to interpret kindness, thank you very much.

But those are only small fry. Neal goes full-on Moran with this:

While atheists are certainly capable of doing good works, those good works are not inspired by an absence of belief in God. How could they be? If atheists do good, it is in spite of – not because of – their atheism, so let’s stop acting like not believing is just another super awesome way of believing.

Can you be more condescending while spouting world-class stupidity? His complacent ‘How could they be?’ alone is weapons-grade stupid, merely underscoring the fact that Neal has skipped Ethics 101. So he’s never heard of Euthyphro – his (rather obvious) loss. But to really kick this into a universe of stupidity of it’s own is to accuse Atheists that they believe Atheism to be a religion. Not understanding non-belief is one thing. But confidently stating an idiocy of this magnitude is really asking for it.

He then whips himself into a truly righteous anger, condemning the activities of some atheists:

Particularly insidious are the atheists who get a sense of satisfaction eroding the faith of others and behave as though it is a favor to rattle another’s belief in a higher power.

Although I, too, have qualms about ‘proselytizing’ Atheists, I would like to pose the following two questions to Neal:

  1. Do you think that Christian missionaries are equally reprehensible?
  2. How do you define the word hypocrisy?

At the end of his text, Neal forgoes the classic ‘Hitler’ argument (which I was expecting), likening atheists to jihadists instead:

I think we could all be more tolerant of unintrusive atheism, because who doesn’t have doubts? But let’s separate them from the purveyors and jihadists of Godlessness

It requires an extraordinary level of incompetence – or, ideed, malice – in times of daily beheadings, rape and torture by jihadist ISIS and militant believers who kill for their god, to use either term in conjunction with atheists who until today have never killed, tortured or raped anyone in the name of unbelief.

What a piece of self-important, hypocritical, holier-than-thou drivel. It’s difficult to believe someone can be that incompetent.

Write less, think more, Neal.

Hold the line

Posted on by

in Talking To God I quipped:

If you tell some one that you are talking to god, nobody bats an eye. Do the same while holding a phone, and they’ll put you in the looney bin.

In a recent and very friendly conversation with a believer I made the same comment, only to have her eyes light up with delight and humor. She agreed that it was funny, although she couldn’t exactly say why.

I can. For believers it’s a matter of perception. For atheists a matter of fact. The only difference between the guy talking to god, and a guy using the phone to talk to god is the phone. Yet, phones in general aren’t known as a leading cause for madness.

Anyone who claims to be talking to god has a screw loose. Phone or no phone.

I contend that believers know this. That’s why they laugh.

The Fabric of Belief

Posted on by

An article in VICE News reports that more than a hundred Muslim Scholars from around the world have made the ‘Theological Case’ against the Islamic State (IS, a.k.a. ISIS). In no uncertain words do the authors denounce IS(IS) as un-islamic.

While it is nice to finally have some muslims speak up against the horrendous atrocities committed in the name Allah, it is entirely pointless.

So a bunch of scholars have gotten together to interpret Quran and Hadith in a certain way in order to show ISIS that their interpretation is wrong. The problem is this: neither side can convincingly prove the other side is wrong – they have equal rights to claim that their interpretation is correct. Looking at the bloody history of religions Canada Phone base Number , a case can be made that the more ruthless and bloody you are, the closer you are to scripture – and that is by no means limited to Islam. Furthermore, no holy Scripture has ever been shown to be ethically sufficient to pass a modern litmus test. A millennia old code of conduct simply can’t – no matter how much parsing is involved.

What we have here, essentially, is one group of courtiers lecturing another group of aristocrats on the correct way to embroider the emperor’s new robes.

Please don’t let me be misunderstood.

Posted on by

Yesterday I mentioned the incredibly misogynic posters that ultra-orthodox jews put up in Stamford Hill. Predictably, and with much credit to Sam Aldersley, the issue blew up.

Chaim Hochhauser, from Stamford Hill’s Shomrim group, tried this as an explanation:

I have spoken to the organisers of the parade – they have apologised. They did not think it would get so public. It was just a misunderstanding.

No.

This is not a misunderstanding. There is nothing to misunderstand about misogyny. To make this perfectly clear – especially to those who maintain that the posters were only intended for religious people: misogyny is not a relative state of the mind; it is always evil. There is no excuse. If you believe that you are entitled to tell a woman which side of the road she must use, you are morally unfit for modern civilization. This is true regardless if you are religious or not.

That these people thought this wouldn’t get so public is just another disturbing reminder that political correctness in the UK is retarding efforts to rid society of institutionalized injustice.